[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3589-H3595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2361, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 287
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of
[[Page H3590]]
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with the
colon on page 46, line 3, through ``account'' on line 14;
section 109; page 67, line 17 through the semicolon on page
67, line 22; beginning with ``That'' on page 68, line 23,
through ``and'' on page 69, line 3; beginning with ``That''
on page 69, line 19, through the comma on line 22; page 73,
line 14 through line 22; section 413; beginning with
``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 11, through the comma
on line 12; beginning with ``notwithstanding'' on page 121,
line 22, through ``laws'' on line 23; beginning with
``Notwithstanding'' on page 124, line 6, through line 7; and
page 124, line 15 through 25. Where points of order are
waived against part of a paragraph or section, points of
order against a provision in another part of such paragraph
or section may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph or section. During consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
This resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 2361, the Interior
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, and provides for 1 hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
For the purpose of amendments, this rule provides for priority
recognition to Members who preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record, and the rule also allows for certain points of
order to be raised in the course of consideration of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with filibusters in the U.S. Senate.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, it does not, but until you say that magic word
the media does not send its attention to the fact that the House is
actually continuing on with the input of good government in our
processes, so this bill actually, for which I am pleased to stand
before the House and support the rule on the underlying legislation, is
the Interior Appropriations Act.
I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman
from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), and many others have put into making and putting this essential
funding bill together, which does live within the budget discipline,
and in fact reflects the priorities of this Congress.
At the same time, it reflects important committee priorities within
the budget itself. We realize that this Congress, this Nation, does not
have the money to do everything. But what we decide to do we should do
well.
By prioritizing the needs, this provides, for example, an increase in
six of the eight EPA programs for the environment. It provides for a
$118 million increase for Indian health services, a $25 million
increase over last year's funding level for restoration of the
Everglades.
These are simply examples. A few others. Provides for National
Heritage Area grants and historic preservation, something that to an
old history teacher I appreciate. This bill provides important
resources to help manage our Nation's public forest resources and our
national parks.
It includes, for example, a $70 million increase for the national
parks base funding, but at the same time $440 million to help reduce
the backlog of national park maintenance. That is how these bills and
these monies should be prioritized, to help preserve and enhance these
unique national treasures.
It also provides for a record amount of funding to the national fire
plan, and gives the Department flexibility in these accounts to help
prevent and fight the annual onslaught of raging fires on public lands
in the West, which have plagued many areas, especially California in
recent years.
I am also pleased in particular that the gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has been diligent in funding the vital
Payment in Lieu of Tax Program, or PILT, which so many western and
rural counties depend upon for these vital public services.
Since this is an open rule, any Member will be allowed to offer
germane amendments. This is a good rule. I think it supports a good
bill. I strongly urge their adoption.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of
what it allows but rather because of what it does not allow. As my
colleague from the majority noted, this rule permits Members to offer
amendments to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill under
the House's 5-minute rule if they do not need waivers of the House
rules.
As someone who will be offering an amendment to that bill later
today, I appreciate that the majority structured the rule in such a
manner. However, I am greatly concerned that the rule blocks the
ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, my friend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), from offering a critical amendment
which would have added $500 million to the bill to fully restore EPA's
State and Tribal Grant Program, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to
their fiscal 2004 levels.
These two programs allow communities around the country to repair and
modernize their water systems, and the underlying legislation greatly
underfunds each account.
For the fiscally conservative in the House, the amendment of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was revenue neutral, paying for
itself by capping the tax cut for millionaires at just over $138,000.
The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could have
benefited literally millions of Americans by making their drinking
water cleaner. But the Rules Committee, on a straight party line vote,
prohibited the House from considering the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we live in trying times with enormous fiscal
constraints, many of which have been brought upon ourselves. As the
chairman and ranking Democrat of the Interior and Environmental
Appropriations Subcommittee will probably note today, they did the best
that they could with what they were given.
Indeed they did. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) for their hard and perhaps most importantly bipartisan work on
this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what the
majority gave them.
The underlying legislation includes funding which is essential to
Everglades restoration, in my district and throughout South Florida.
The bill maintains funding for the National Endowment of the Arts at
its current level, and it increases funding for the National Endowment
for the Humanities by a little less than $500,000.
The bill also increases funding for operations at our national parks,
as well as a $67 million much-needed increase in funding for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
Despite these increases the underlying legislation makes major cuts
in funding to some of our most important environmental and health
programs. $240 million has been cut from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund. $110 million from the State and Tribal Assistance Grant
Account.
Conservation funding is about $750 million below, or less than half
of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and
Restoration Act in 2000. Overall, EPA's budget has been cut by $300
million.
[[Page H3591]]
This is only the second of 13 appropriations measures which this body
will consider over the next few months. It is also the second
appropriations bill in which we can see the drastic and dramatic
effects of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are going to try and
associate domestic funding cuts with the cost of the war in Iraq. It
seems like a plausible reason, and certainly one that the public could
believe. But the truth is that domestic spending cuts are not occurring
to pay for the war, they are happening to pay for the President's tax
cuts.
The Republican budget that Congress approved 2 weeks ago only set
aside $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The remaining
costs, probably another $50 billion or more, if this year is any
indication, will be funded by Congress through so-called emergency
supplemental appropriations. These emergency costs will be added to the
national debt, because we irresponsibly did not budget for it though we
knew they were obvious. What has ensued is not the fault of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is the fault of those who
supported the budget resolution.
Later today, some Members will seek to improve the funding
shortfalls, which the chairman and ranking Democrat sought to avoid.
For example, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) will offer an
amendment that restores the President's 33 percent cut for
environmental justice programs to the fiscal year 2005 level.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will also
offer an amendment that will increase funding for the cleanup of
brownfields sites by $2 million.
Additionally, I will offer an amendment that will require EPA to
identify and take the necessary steps to protect minority and low
income communities from bearing a disproportionate burden of poor
environmental policy which adversely affects their health and well
being.
All communities currently do not share in the burden of health and
environmental risks, and my amendment expresses Congress' support for
EPA doing what is necessary to protect these communities.
Mr. Speaker, individuals in our country on their own are not going to
force power companies to reduce mercury emissions from smokestacks.
Individuals on their own are not going to conduct major environmental
restoration, and they certainly do not have the capacity to clean up
our drinking water. But collectively, collectively, Mr. Speaker, we can
all make this happen.
When utilizing the Clean Air Act, EPA can force power plants to come
into compliance with new standard reviews. When enforcing the Clean
Drinking Water Act, EPA can require cities and counties to provide
their residents with safe drinking water.
{time} 1115
With innovation that can only occur in a consortium of stakeholders,
the Department of the Interior can make major environmental restoration
projects a reality.
Enforcement is not free and neither is environmental restoration.
Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing his or
her own fair share. Is there any Member in this body who is unwilling
to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean
air to breathe? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool
his or her resources with others in his or her neighborhood to
collectively ensure that everyone, everyone, has safe drinking water,
or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards
polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins.
I do not blame or fault the appropriators for the funding cuts in the
underlying legislation; but I do fault the majority in this body for
creating a situation in which failure to adequately fund America's
needs has become imminent. The American people will feel the same way
when they wake up tomorrow and realize that their children and
grandchildren will be paying for our fiscal mismanagement for
generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again with this particular rule being open, it
allows any Member who wishes to, to bring an amendment to the floor. It
is the wonderful prerogative of the Members to do that. It is also very
nice to note that the Committee on Appropriations which is tasked with
trying to prioritize needs and fund those that are truly significant in
that prioritization, and in this particular situation, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) in a very collegial way have done just that, and have
presented a good and balanced bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong
opposition to what I consider a very bad bill. This Department of the
Interior appropriations bill as written is a direct assault against our
Nation's environment, and it should be defeated.
I am particularly outraged that the bill completely zeros out the
stateside grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a
program that has been an enormous help to our local communities and the
families who live in them.
The stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped to preserve
open space, slow urban sprawl, and give our children safe places to
play. It is a true partnership with Federal grants requiring a full
match from States and local communities. It is a program that has
worked, and it has worked well. But this Republican bill completely
eliminates the program. It zeros it out, walks away from our local
communities.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, is based upon a simple
concept: it takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and
invests them in our Nation's public land, letting States take the lead.
For 40 years this program has a proven track record and benefited from
strong bipartisan support.
When Congress decided to open the outercontinental shelf to oil
drilling, we pledged to use some of its revenues for the public good.
With the goal of meeting the Nation's growing need for recreation
sites, Congress established the LWCF trust fund and agreed to reinvest
an annual portion of OCS revenue into Federal land acquisition and
State-assistance development programs.
Now even though LWCF takes in $900 million annually from oil and gas
receipts, in recent years just a fraction of this funding has been used
for its rightful purpose. And today, the Republican leadership has
taken their pillaging a step further by completely eliminating the
stateside program and using the money for something else.
This bill breaks our promise to the American people by not spending
this funding the way we are supposed to. In all, the stateside program
has helped communities by funding 40,000 projects nationally, success
stories that can be found in every State and in 98 percent of U.S.
counties.
I urge my colleagues to ask their Governors and their mayors and
county commissioners if they want the stateside program to be
eliminated. If the answer is no, vote against this bill.
This cut is particularly harmful to our Nation's underserved areas.
In fact, in many low-income urban communities, the stateside grant
program is responsible for virtually all parks.
This is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. This bill demonstrates that
for the Republican leadership, tax breaks for the wealthy few are more
precious than open space. For this leadership, millionaires are more
important than kids who need a safe place to play. And for this
leadership, lobbyists win and families lose.
We will hear the rhetoric from the other side claiming they did the
best they could with what they had. They will complain that the
allocation given to the subcommittee just was not big enough. They
should save their crocodile tears because those same Members voted for
the budget that created those
[[Page H3592]]
allocations. They created this mess, and now the families of this
country are paying the price. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
rule and reject this bad bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), and I commend the gentleman for the one statement he asked
us all to do which is to go to our State and local leaders and find out
what their priorities happen to be.
I would like to do something unique so far in today's debate and talk
about something that is actually in the bill, and something about which
we will be debating later, and preface it with the comment of why, when
we try to prioritize, should we spend new taxpayer money for new
recreation areas and programs when some of the existing programs, long-
time recognized, long time in the bill, are not totally and fully
funded.
If I could, Mr. Speaker, I come from a western State that has a great
deal of Federal land. In fact, 67 percent of my State is owned by the
Federal Government. If we add military lands on top of that, it is
almost 80 percent owned by the Federal Government. And, unfortunately,
my State is not the worst situation. There are States that have more of
their land owned by the Federal Government.
Oftentimes I have Members come to the floor and say these lands
belong to all of us, but the cost of maintaining those lands is not
borne by all of us; it is borne by the citizens who happen to reside
within those particular States.
Now I am an old teacher, and as I look at the situation of education,
I find a unique phenomenon that the area of this country in which
education funding is growing the slowest, the area of this country
where the classrooms are the largest, the area of this country where
the student population is increasing the fastest, and the area of this
country where State and local commitment in tax base is being paid by
their citizens all happen to be found in the 13 States of the West. And
the common denominator for all is the amount of public lands that
happen to be in these particular States.
Those Members east of the Rocky Mountains sometimes do not comprehend
the concept because there is very little of your land owned by the
Federal Government, and you can maximize the amount of input, but you
cannot do it in the West.
One of my counties has an area known as the Black Box, something that
no one in Utah would ever try to raft down. One of our good constituent
friends from another State decided to come and raft in the area of the
Black Box; and, unfortunately, he lost his life doing it.
The problem is my County of Emery had to expend its resources and
have their rescue team risk their lives to retrieve the body. All of
the money that was budgeted for that year's critical rescue missions
was expended on that one individual entering from the east using all of
these public lands. All of the cost of that was borne by the citizens
of that particular county, which means once again these lands belong to
all of us, but the expense attached to these lands do not belong to all
of us.
There is a program that we have long had called ``payment in lieu of
taxes,'' which recognizes the burden placed upon the West and the
burden that should be funded. From the mid-1970s until the early 1990s,
virtually no new money was placed in this program. It was flat funding
for almost that whole period of time. This Congress put $1.4 million of
new money into the burgeoning problem of trying to pay for the Federal
lands in the West. Under the direction of the gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and others on the subcommittee, that has
increased significantly, almost doubling. They have recognized the
need, but they have never fully funded the cost imposed on western
States through payment in lieu of tax funding.
This last year, this program, traditionally run through the Bureau of
Land Management, was taken over by the Department of the Interior with
the idea of prioritizing it. They did not. Instead of prioritizing this
program, they recommended a cut in this program and increased funding
to the administrative overhead of the Department of the Interior.
I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for
recognizing the unfairness of this and by increasing the payment in
lieu of taxes to last year's level plus $3 million, but it is still not
close to full funding.
I am confident and hopeful that we will discuss that particular issue
because it is a well-established program. It is not new, and we should
be funding those well-established programs fully before we launch into
new endeavors.
I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for
zeroing out the land acquisition budget except for necessary
administration costs because it comes up with the same policy: we do
not start buying new land until we fully fund those lands that we
already own.
We have an opportunity of expanding this in conference. This is one
of the issues in this free-flowing open rule that we will be discussing
later on. This is an issue where I commend the chairman for doing what
he has done in this bill and urge him to continue on, because the
citizens of the West, the kids in the West, the education system of the
West have been harmed too long by policies that all of us in Congress
for over 30 years have been implementing. It is an unfairness that must
be dealt with.
I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the
committee for moving the first step forward. But I hope that we can
look at other amendments as this debate goes forward that would look at
funding the programs we already have that have been there for many
years that desperately need to be fully funded before we launch into
others, and that is specifically what an appropriations process should
do. It should prioritize our needs. Once again, we can go back to the
concept that we cannot fund everything, but what we fund, we should
fund well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confuzzled by the continuing argument of my
colleague and friend on the Committee on Rules that his State is
impacted by virtue of education formulas. I do not disagree with what
the gentleman says, but I find it interesting that the State of Utah,
while the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is arguing that they are not
getting enough money for education, the State of Utah legislature
passed measures saying they do not want any Federal money for
education. They need to make up their mind so we know what all they are
doing out there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the previous question on the
rule, and after the bill is considered, unless it is substantially
changed, I will be intending to vote against the bill itself for a
variety of reasons.
My main reason is this bill represents gross negligence of our
responsibility to clean up the Nation's air and water pollution. This
bill provides huge cuts, 40 percent cuts over a 2-year period in the
clean water revolving fund. If there is any Member of this Chamber who
has a district that does not have a community that needs more loans to
fix their sewer and water problems, would you please raise your hand. I
would like to see one Member who thinks that they have enough money.
I note no Member of the House present has raised his hand.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, I would say there is a great deal of hypocrisy
surrounding the budget process. Every time that those of us on this
side of the aisle point to the shortcomings in the budget that the
Republican majority has just passed, we hear, ``Well, we can't do
anything about these shortages in the appropriation bills because,
after all, we have limited resources.''
The gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Utah, said the
appropriations process, quote, ``should prioritize our needs.'' I fully
agree.
[[Page H3593]]
That is what I wanted to be able to try to do by offering an amendment
which this rule would preclude me from offering. Because what I wanted
to do is to change the judgment, change the priority judgment that the
majority party made when they decided it was more important to give a
$140,000 tax cut to someone who makes a million bucks this year, they
decided that was more important, that was a higher priority, than
cleaning up our air or cleaning up our water. I do not think that
represents the priority choice that the American people would make but
it is the priority choice that the majority party has made.
The only way that we can change that priority judgment is by offering
the amendment that I wanted to offer, which would have scaled back the
size of those tax cuts for anybody making a million dollars a year or
more. It would have scaled back those average tax cuts from $140,000 to
$138,000. Imagine those poor souls having to get by with a tax cut of
only $138,000. I remind you, those are people who make more than a
million dollars.
I do not begrudge, I do not denigrate in any way people who have
managed to strike it rich and who are managing to make a million
dollars a year. I hope everybody in this country at some point in their
lives can do that. But I do believe that people who are the most
blessed in our society ought to pay their fair share and the budget
resolution which was imposed on this committee by this House does not
allow us to reach that kind of fair distribution of tax burden.
So if we object to that what I regard to be not just ill-advised but
immoral allocation of resources, the only device that we have to try to
change that is to try to make our point on each of these appropriation
bills trying to get the majority party to understand that just as they
reconsidered their unilateral actions on Ethics Committee changes a
couple of weeks ago, we would also like them to reconsider their poor
judgment on the budget resolution.
Because the Rules Committee would not allow that amendment, I am
going to vote against the previous question, and I am going to vote
against the bill because the bill is grossly negligent in dealing with
the air and water pollution problems facing this country. I am also not
at all thrilled by the fact that for the first time in all the years I
have been in Congress there will not be a single dollar provided for
land acquisition programs. The gentleman may not want it in his State,
but there are key tracts of land that we want the government to acquire
in my State, there are key tracts of land we want the government to
acquire, for instance, at George Washington's birthplace before real
estate developers destroy that beauty for all time.
I am an old real estate broker, so I have nothing against real estate
developers but I do not think they ought to be able to get their gloms
on the most pristine land in this country and turn it into a shopping
mall when we have our population increase by one-third since I came to
this body and when we have an increased need for resources that the
average family can enjoy.
But most of all the biggest problem with this bill is that it walks
away from our obligation to help State and local governments clean up
some of the dirtiest rivers and dirtiest lakes in the country. It walks
away from our responsibility to prevent communities like Milwaukee from
dumping their surplus sewage into Lake Michigan every time there is a
storm. That is an outrageous neglect of our stewardship
responsibilities. I think this bill makes it even easier to ignore
those responsibilities, and I think that is a disgraceful act.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider
the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that was
rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line
vote.
Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add $500 million to the bill to
restore funding for the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program to
its fiscal year 2004 levels. This program allows communities around the
country to repair and modernize their water systems. I find it
incomprehensible that we do not understand the dynamics of that or that
most if not all of us in this body do not have communities that would
benefit from modernizing our water systems. The Obey amendment offsets
these expenditures by capping at just over $138,000 the tax cut for
people making over $1 million this year. The Obey amendment pays for
itself and adds nothing to the Federal debt while maintaining funding
levels in every other program in the bill.
This amendment will correct one of the most serious shortfalls in
this bill. It is absolutely critical that this funding be restored. We
can fix this today if we allow the Obey amendment to be considered on
the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the
previous question.
I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us
from considering the Interior Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote
will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes''
vote will block consideration of the Obey amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote
``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I appreciate the opportunity coming here and discussing this
particular open rule that allows for us to discuss the prioritization
which is the key element of what we do in every appropriations issue.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is free to come here on the floor and talk
about whether he believes the prioritization of this committee is
accurate or not, whether he believes the Democrat approach would be a
tax increase or not. But the same discussion also takes place in
another area and it takes place in the committee process before it ever
comes to this bill. I am here to still contend that the committee, both
Republican and Democrat, did a good job in coming up with a
prioritization process.
When the gentleman from Wisconsin talks about the desire for having
new land, I do not dispute that nor do I oppose it necessarily. What we
are saying is it is part of the prioritization. I would support
acquisition of new land once we finally fully fund and take care of the
lands we have. This committee has looked into that. This committee put
significant new money not just into national parks but to maintain the
backlog that we have of maintenance in our national parks. That is
prioritization.
This committee recognized by putting PILT up to at least the level it
was last year that there is a prioritization that takes place there at
the same time. I was saying with PILT, and I will say it again, that
what we have to do is fully fund it because it has been looked at for
too long, especially when the minority party was in charge here and
there were basically no increases in PILT funding, it has been looked
at for too long as welfare for the West. It is not. It is rent that is
due on that land and if you prioritize the budget, you prioritize those
programs first before you expand anything else. I have to commend this
committee for actually doing that.
I think there are some areas in which I think they could go ahead and
move forward in those particular areas but once again prioritizing
those commitments we have already made and fully funding those first.
That is what this committee has tried to do. Whether you like or
dislike their end product, they should be congratulated for coming that
close.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate the fairness of this
open rule and urge its adoption because of that along with the
underlying appropriation legislation. No bill is perfect. I am sure we
can all come up with issues here and there in the appropriations bill
or, for that matter, in any other bill we have where we would like to
have it come out differently had we had our way, but in judging this
bill as a whole and the process that has been through it to get to the
point, I believe it is worthy for Members to support this particular
piece of legislation.
[[Page H3594]]
And then I do want to talk to my good friend from Florida about what
we really did with education in Utah. He is summarizing the New York
Times, not reality. But other than that, we will forget that point
right now. I will talk later to him about that.
Again, I urge Members to support this rule.
The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of
Florida is as follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 287--Rule for H.R 2361 FY06 Interior
Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if ofered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. 2361, as Reported Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) The amount otherwise provided in this Act for
``Environmental Protection Agency--State and Tribal
Assistance Grants'' (and the amount specified under such
heading for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water
State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act) is hereby increased by $500,000,000.
(b) In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income in
excess of $1,000,000 for calendar year 2006, the amount of
tax reduction resulting from enactment of the Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-16)
and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 1.562 percent.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 194, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
YEAS--215
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--24
Boustany
Burgess
Cantor
Fattah
Gingrey
Harman
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Keller
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Matsui
Millender-McDonald
Ney
Ryan (WI)
Shays
Simpson
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tiahrt
Udall (CO)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1209
Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, 2005, I was unable to be present for
rollcall vote No. 190, on ordering the Previous Question to provide for
consideration of H.R. 2361, making appropriations for the Department of
the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 39, 2006 and for other purposes. Had I been present I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 190.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190 I was
traveling with the President in Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H3595]]
____________________